RE: LC124

David,

The point about SOAP encoding is that WSDL 1.1 used XML Schema to describe 
messages that were SOAP encoded, but of course the messages didn't in 
general validate against that schema. Rather, WSDL 1.1 was being creative 
in its use of XSD by saying that it was just the abstract definition of 
the message.

Now we are being asked to entertain a similar creative use of XSD in that 
it is initial version of a family of schema versions and the messages 
validate against any member of the family rather than the initial one the 
appears in the WSDL 2.0 document.

In neither case are we to interpret the schema literally.

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/



"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
07/07/2005 09:30 AM

To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: LC124






SOAP encoding was created because Schema didn't exist and the original 
goal was to do "object access" so types including graphs were needed.  I 
don't understand the point..
 
Can you say what is insufficient about the latest round of definitions for 
"ignoreUnknowns"?  They haven't pointed to conference papers for their 
definitions.
 
Cheers,
Dave
 

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On 
Behalf Of Arthur Ryman
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 3:33 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: LC124
 

I've been discussing LC124 with my colleagues and I thought I'd post an 
update in case we discuss this tomorrow. 

1. In general, we agree the versioning is important, and we'd like the 
problem addressed. 
2. We are concerned that this is really an XML Schema problem and that 
WSDL is probably not the right place to address it. There is work going on 
now in the Schema WG. There are several solutions being proposed and it 
would be premature for WSDL to adopt the validate-twice solution (although 
that is a strong contender). As a cautionary tale, the creative use of 
Schema with SOAP Encoding was cited. The schema didn't really describe the 
message. We don't want a repeat in WSDL 2.0. We are concerned about 
locking in a solution that may not agree with the direction of Schema. 
3. The boolean nature of ignoreUnknowns is not very useful. In many 
scenarios, it is important to know if the unknown content is preserved 
(e.g. passed on) or even processed. 
4. There is no normative document that describes the proposed processing 
algorithm. Who will write that? (pointing to conference papers is not 
adequate). The WSDL spec should only cite other specs for Core features. 

I need more time to establish a company position since this is vacation 
season. I'll try to move this issue forward though. 


Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/